Many people have vastly different expectations for a TV, so it's hard for me to see Apple successfully navigate this market without modifying/sacrificing their standard approaches (that is, a limited choice, high-end product line).

Content is key - and that can be provided through a set-top box.
I could see a television set launched alongside a newly refreshed Apple TV, but I don't think it would be good for them to abandon the Apple TV box (not that anyone has suggested that).

It all comes down to content. Until Apple TV can provide live sporting events and first run network/cable content, it will NEVER be able to make a dent in the cable/satellite model.

The success of the iPod was largely due to music industry being unprepared for the digital age. Piracy threatened to kill the golden goose, iTunes found a way to monetize music in the digital age.

TV content isn't at that point right now. Now only is there a ton of competition among distribution networks (cable/satellite), but you also have Netflix, Hulu and others pushing digital content. Anybody with a $50 Roku box raises an eyebrow at paying ala carte for everything off Apple TV.

Add to the mix, hardware costs/margins are very low. Apple can't roll out a $2999 55 inch TV set and think anybody but the biggest Apple fans are going to buy it....

You've got, what, 50+ countries that Apple sell products in? Now, each of those countries has its own TV content licensing, all has to be distributed in different ways, etc.

It's not going to be a simple thing to do. I just dont see any form of real TV stations being made available that arent already streaming online already.

Exactly! Another big issue that Apple (if they were to try to support content) would be the cost of live sports for all those regions. Take the example of Football (okay, soccer for those in the US). The Premier League in the UK makes its money (and hence the clubs make their money) from selling the broadcast rights over and over again, country by country, across Europe, the Americas, Asia, etc. That's just a single league in a single sport.

At the moment, Apple won't even go as far as putting the BBC iPlayer onto the ATV puck. Until they can look outside the borders of the USA, any putative TV set would be little more than a very expensive toy.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx

Oh man .. I sure hope this whole Apple TV business has anything for us folks outside the US too .. I would assume the big benefits of such a TV set would come from new, innovative ways to access content which in turn requires the big content provider to play along. Apple may be able to strike a deal with them for the US market, but I don't see this thing being a big hit elsewhere in the world.
Personally I hope they contiune the settop box approach, since I don't want to buy an entirely new TV every other year.

At the moment, Apple won't even go as far as putting the BBC iPlayer onto the ATV puck. Until they can look outside the borders of the USA, any putative TV set would be little more than a very expensive toy.

Even when you look inside the USA it'd be little more then a toy. Largely for the same reasons. Even nationally broadcast rights are jealously guard to the point that some broadcasters (Comcast) take swipes at their Interent customers that try to use online versions of things they broadcast as subscription channels.

It's a mess. Frankly the only company with the ability to possibly break the current model would be Google if they started leveraging YouTube as an international network and started their own studio to secure rights to new content and shows. Like Apple Maps, Apple doesn't have the infrastructure to back a similar move.

Here is how you all will justify that you "need" a Apple TV.
It likely will be a unibody design machined from aluminium with a apple glowing on the front.
You would use your iPhone , iPod touch or iPad as a remote. And there will be a Apple TV built in.

A story about an LCD panel maker, Sharp, whose product will unlikely be used in a television that is unlikely to launch in 2013 due to non secured content contracts, which won't be promoted at a trade show because it is difficult to believe in because the company implied holds it own media events close to product launch.

So, basically, MacRumors could have posted those few sentences in lieu of bloviating about a non news event of a non story!
/
/
/

I love Apple products, but I don't see myself ever buying an Apple-branded TV. I'll stick with my Sony/Samsung with an external box (i.e. Apple TV).

I would. One thing I do like about Apple is how the goods look. I don't mean the design, I mean the fit and finish and attention to fine details. I still look at my '06 Mac Pro now and marvel at how tidy it is and how every angle, even the back / underneath is a work of art.
I have recently bought a Sony myself and it wasn't the specs that swayed me it was the look, (even when it is off - just looks like a panel of black glass with no ugly plastic or out of place shapes), I simply shortlisted all the ones I liked and picked from those. Little touches like how the Sony logo is silver when off and glows white when on.

For me it's that kind of thing, (as well as actually doing the job of course), that makes Apple a winner.

If the prices don't start at £3000.00 which I suspect they will, I'm in!

If I were in the market for a new TV, and Apple made TVs, I'd certainly consider them, along with whatever else was available. I might be willing to pay more for an Apple TV, if it offered additional featuress that I wanted. Apple has a track record of announcing products that don't particularly interest me, but once I learn more about them, I become intrigued, and once I finally buy them, I get hooked. The iPhone didn't interest me when it came out (I was fine with whatever basic Nokia phone my cell-phone company provided for free with contract), but once apps became available, that changed everything for me. When the iPad came out, it struck me as an expensive toy that couldn't do anything my MBP couldn't do, but after a year of friends telling me how great the iPad was, and how you had to use it to understand why, I finally caved in and bought one. Since then, I've used it every day, and I only use my MBP for heavy typing, photo processing, and music creation. So my inclination is to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, rather than proclaiming the iTV to be an "overpriced epic fail" before it's even been announced, for gawd's sake.

Having recently purchased a 1080P 2D/3D projector and 120" screen, though, I have no interest in buying a 55" TV, Apple or otherwise; however, I would be interested in a set-top box, depending on features and cost. There's been a lot of discussion in these threads about how TVs don't seem like a viable market for Apple, because people generally keep their TVs for seven or eight years. Wondering whether any research has actually been done on this, I did a web search, and found the following article, which has been posted in various places:

It says that the conventional wisdom of a seven-or-eight-year upgrade cycle is no longer valid. With the new features and dropping prices on HDTVs, many people are trending toward a three-to-five-year cycle, similar to that for computers. Furthermore, many people are buying multiple TVs. They buy the latest and greatest, and move the previous primary TV to another room. I'm sure the folks at Apple have researched this, and they wouldn't be moving into the TV market if they didn't think they could succeed. Go back through the MacRumors archives and read about the rumor buzz leading up to the announcement of every new Apple product. Half the people posting predicted they'd be failures, and that Apple was doomed.

It wouldn't surprise me if Apple do release a TV set, but it will be DOA unless they release an expanded hockey puck that will has all of the features (tuners, mics, cameras etc...).

It's not beyond the pail to think many people will go out and replace their main TV with a sleek Sir Jony Ive designed TV, but not many will be able to replace all 3, 4, 5, 6+ TVs that they have throughout their house. If part of Apple's new device is a revolutionary new content delivery model that allows users to cancel their cable subscriptions you need to have it on every TV otherwise you haven't achieved much!

The report notes that using displays in the claimed range of 46-55 inches gives Apple flexibility in deciding on one or more vendors to supply LCD panels for the television sets.

If it ever happens I hope they have a proper range of sizes including 26", 32" and 40" which are the most popular sizes around the world. Ok I realise in the US you have bigger sizes but I don't know anyone who could fit a 55" TV in their living room.

I own one, and still feel it's a pretty stupid device. It's great if you live in the US and watch sports, and buy all your content on iTunes.

In the UK it's basically just s £100 box that lets you buy stuff of iTunes and stream Airplay.

So far Apple have completely ignored the international market with the ATV. I dont see it changing with the launch of a full blown TV. There's still pretty much zero content for it other than via Youtube or iTunes. Apps alone really isnt enough to warrant buying a full blown TV at double/tripple the price anyone else sells it at.

yeah, but who says it's going to be triple what other manufacturers sell? we don't know price points. and you don't have to buy it. My TV is about 7 years old and I'm holding out waiting for the Apple TV Set. I rather pay a little bit more money and have great syncing, a great ecosystem and great support than just get a Samsung or something. I'm sure it would have a great interface too.

Apple will not release a product that would be substandard to the current king of TVs - Samsung. Samsung's new 7550 TV comes in at 2600 for 46 inch and 3400 for 55 inch. These are two of the more popular sizes on the big screen size so I imagine they would stick with these. To meet Apple's required profit margin, we are probably looking at 2995 and 3995 respectively - if we are lucky. I think they will take the same approach they do with their computers by focusing on a small group of people as pricing like that would do it. Or they could go the route of their iPods and iPads and price more appropriately for the masses and focus on app, subscription, and rental revenue generated from the devices. Even though Samsung has much cheaper versions of their TVs, everyone is going to compare Apple with only the top version of what Samsung has. If the TV is innovative and integrates with all of my other Mac stuff, I'd get a 55 inch version - after convincing my wife we need it and the kids could go without new clothing for a while.